Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum

[Jeffrey Kane <jeffkane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Now you're talking about technology that's beyond obsolete with perhaps a
handful of functioning units in the world if even that. I'm sure a new paper
tape writer/reader could be fashioned (as well as media) but again the
amount of media necessary for this amount of data would make storage a
difficult proposition. As an example, a 1" wide paper tape can store 70 bits
per linear inch. Figure with lossless compression you can reduce the
datasize by half. Thus, that's 1.1 million bits per second. For every second
of data at 88.2Khz/24 bits you'd need approximately 1309 FEET of tape.  Each
minute of sound would be 78,540 feet of tape. Now, paper tape is MUCH
thicker than magnetic... One CD worth would conceivably fill a very large
storage space.

I realize my point of view is an uneducated one but IMO the most stable
archival method I've seen thus far is vinyl. It's a shame pressing records
is so prohibitive as we all have countless examples of records that have
survived 50-100 years with minimal degradation. I personally have new old
stock 78s in my collection from the late 30s that look and play as though
they were just pressed. The microgroove records perform even better. I'm
sure metal parts would last even longer. Could something like a Vestax
VRX-2000 be modified for archival purposes?

Here's a link for those unfamiliar with the product.

http://www.vestax.com/products/vrx2000.htm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Watsky, Lance
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 3:18 PM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> It would seem as though a way to achieve this would be to use
> the paper tape that was is used in the early computer days,
> not individual sheets of paper. The paper could then be
> created with archival paper specifications.
>
> Lance Watsky
> Preservation & Media Specialist
> The Georgia Archives
> 5800 Jonesboro Road
> Morrow, GA 30260
> 678-364-3764 (phone)
> 678-364-3860 (fax)
> lwatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.GeorgiaArchives.org
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:02 PM
> To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum
>
>
> Hi, Steven,
>
> Are you suggesting that we then OCR it back into the computer?
>
> Let's see. 88,200 samples per second, 24 bits.
>
> Lets, for the sake of argument print it as binary since we
> can't seem to all agree on the ASCII/Windows/ANSI/etc
> representations of some of the codes.
>
> So, we have a page of 1s and 0s. We would have 2.2 million 1s
> and 0s per second.
> Even if we developed a true 8-bit glyph, we'd have 265,000 of
> them per second. Let's figure dense printing: 120 characters
> per line and 80 lines per page, or 9,600 glyphs per page.
> We'd need almost 28 pages per second per channel. A stereo 40
> minute recording would require over 132,000 pages.
>
> Now, granted, that's at higher definition than an audio CD.
>
> Doing the same numbers for a CD using the 8-bit glyph gives
> you 44,100 pages for the same 40 minute recording. (I didn't
> plan it to work out that way <smile>.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
> At 12:12 PM 1/11/2005 -0800, you wrote:
> >Just a thought:
> >
> >Does anyone make digital audio copies from their archival sound
> >sources, then store the data as code printouts? Cards,
> paper, whatever?
> >
> >I would think with digital information technology, we don't
> really need
> >to rely on tape or laser-encoded discs for archival storage when it
> >would be so much more efficient to store the information as digital
> >code, ready at any time to be translated through software into audio
> >sound. A hard copy of the code would avoid the degradation that all
> >storage media suffer and always offer a first-generation
> master of the
> >original source recovery, where a CD-R or a tape would be subject to
> >the condition of the transport media.
> >
> >Know what I mean?
> >
> >Steven Austin
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> >[mailto:ARSCLIST@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard L. Hess
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 11:43 AM
> >To: ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Format conundrum
> >
> >Hi, Kevin,
> >
> >Cal State Fullerton did a similar sized collection to two
> CD-Rs. Sharon
> >Owen did a fantastic job with a little coaching and a lot of
> wonderful
> >volunteers.
> >
> >I have been saying for the last four or five years that archiving to
> >1/4-inch is a waste of money as it won't be playable by the time the
> >CDs won't be playable. Not from wearing out but from no
> machines being
> >available.
> >
> >Now with tape essentially unavailable (unless Quantegy gets its act
> >together), that is just one more good reason. I guess you could get
> >some of the JAI red-oxide tape from India <sigh>.
> >
> >All the best,
> >
> >Richard
> >http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
> >
> >At 12:14 PM 1/11/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Dear Fellow Archivists,
> > >
> > >I have spent the last 7 years working with a private institutional
> >audio
> > >collection.  The collection of 7000 tapes is primarily
> cassette  with
> >some
> > >very early 1/4".  Up until now we have been reformatting
> to both CD-R
> >and
> > >full track 1/4" (7 1/2 ips).  I have been uncomfortable with the
> >prospect
> > >of putting all our historical eggs in one basket
> especially when that
> > >basket (CD-R) hasn't got much of a longterm track record.  However,
> >with
> > >the recent closing of the Quantegy plant, and the future
> availability
> >of
> > >1/4" tape in question, I am re-evaluating my stance.  I
> suspect there
> >have
> > >been many discussions on this list about format choice for
> > >preservation projects such as ours but I am a recent
> subscriber and
> > >have not had the good fortune to gleen the views already expressed.
> > >
> > >So, my question is really a request for a quick survey.
> How many of
> >you
> > >would vote in favor of using CD-R alone, for a collection
> like ours,
> >with
> > >multiple copies being generated for long term preservation
> and access
> > >purposes?  (Considering that we would like not to have to
> do another
> >round
> > >of reformatting for at least 30 years.)
> > >
> > >Thank you in advance for your responses and any other comments you
> > >care
> >to
> > >make.
> > >Sincerely yours,
> > >
> > >Kevin Irelan
> > >SYDA Foundation
> > >Audio Archive
>